D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[ChrisCarlson]

Fun fact:

2/3rds of respondents want a Warlord.

And almost everyone wants Lemmon Curry as well.

With the size of the community here, I would instead gather not many care enough to show they want a warlord (only 150 have bothered to click), and only slightly more like lemon curry (still not that big a number).

There's no way I know of to see how many unique individuals have visited this thread. But what we do know is that at least 186 have. And a non-insignificant number of them intentionally did not click on warlord.

That it is somehow wrong to not want a 4e port over of the warlord is interesting to me.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No, it's not.

Marshal existed in 3e.

Help action, Commander's Strike, Healer, and Inspiring Leader already exist in 5e.



There's no reason the warlord can't be made to fit 5e.
Heck, just give them bonuses for using the help action.

i.e.
"You can use the help action as a bonus action."
"If you help an ally attack, and he hits, he deal extra damage to your Int modifier."
"You can use the help action to give advantage on saving throws."
ect...

The elephant in the room, however, is that the devs have given us what they deem to be a viable, workable 5e warlord. They've said as much. I know you recall because we've had this very same debate before over on the WotC forums.

They've told us they put the parts of the warlord--that will work within the parameters of the 5e engine--into the battlemaster, as well as a feat or two. Heck, even bard can potentially take you there. The flavor of the warlord has been preserved. No, it's not a 4e warlord. Because that wouldn't work whole-cloth in a different rules paradigm. It's like demanding fighters get back AD&D double weapon specialization. Fighter's aren't true fighters without their good ol' iconic DWS, darnit! Where's our DWS?!?! It's a misguided notion.

Could they add another feat or two with things to enhance "tactical" play? Sure. Like you Help suggestion, etc.

But a class? Not necessary.

 

[Jessica]

That it is somehow wrong to not want a 4e port over of the warlord is interesting to me.

People are going to be upset when 5e, that was touted as the edition to "unite the editions" by many people, leaves out favorites from the core of their favorite previous edition. It's almost like those people really didn't mean to unite the editions, but rather just the non-4e editions. It's like some populist revolution seizes power and then their supporters spend all their time condemning their political enemies and trying to root them out where ever they can.

 

[Jessica]

They've told us they put the parts of the warlord--that will work within the parameters of the 5e engine--into the battlemaster, as well as a feat or two. Heck, even bard can potentially take you there. The flavor of the warlord has been preserved. No, it's not a 4e warlord. Because that wouldn't work whole-cloth in a different rules paradigm. It's like demanding fighters get back AD&D double weapon specialization. Fighter's aren't true fighters without their good ol' iconic DWS, darnit! Where's our DWS?!?! It's a misguided notion.

The developers learn more about their system all the time. Compared to now they barely knew anything about their own system. These are the same developers, who after a massive playtest, let the Ranger, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Crossbow Expert through and then many months later realized that they dun goofed and either tried or are trying to fix it. Compared to a year or two from now these same developers still know relatively little about the system and what it can or can't handle because the mechanics are organic.

 

[Imaro]

I think the reason why they were shut out is because Warlord is an inherently 4E:ish concept.

I see no reason to conclude the Warlord itself was hated. You just need to discuss it with 5E fans open to 4E concepts, and those fans only.

Otherwise you will never be able to separate the constructive "I dislike the Warlord or some of its features but like other 4E-specific classes" sentiment from the wholly unconstructive "I dislike 4E" or "I dislike you bringing 4E into my 5E game" sentiments.

A basic premise of a real Warlord is running 5E the 4E way. I'm not sure the discussion climate here will ever tolerate such a discussion, but in order to give it a shot, you need start a new thread making this clear from the start.

I find it interesting that the warlord, if it was such a popular class, wasn't included in the new Essentials core either... I brought this up earlier in the thread, but I don't think the warlord was as popular as the internets would have one believe. WotC had the online CB which fed them data on which classes were being played the most and I find it hard to beleve that if a majority of their fans were really playing warlords they would have left them out of 5e.

EDIT: I am intrigued by your statement of running 5e the 4e way... could you further expound on what exactly that means?

 

[Imaro]

People are going to be upset when 5e, that was touted as the edition to "unite the editions" by many people, leaves out favorites from the core of their favorite previous edition. It's almost like those people really didn't mean to unite the editions, but rather just the non-4e editions. It's like some populist revolution seizes power and then their supporters spend all their time condemning their political enemies and trying to root them out where ever they can.

Or the thing left out wasn't really all that popular in the larger realm of D&D things. Your conclusion is based on the presumption that the warlord is a popular class amongst D&D players (for whatever value popular is) but that assumption hasn't (and probably can't) be proven out.

Tell me if you could remove a class in 5e to make space for the Warlord... which one would it be? What class do you think that is part of 5e core is less popular then the warlord with all D&D fans across all editions?

 

[Imaro]

Fun fact:

2/3rds of respondents want a Warlord.

And almost everyone wants Lemmon Curry as well.

Here's a fact that's even more fun... the poll is useless for the purpose of determining anything close to how many respondents want a warlord as it's not a publicly visible poll and can be voted in numerous times by the same person without even signing in...

 

[Guest 6801328]

My primary opposition to the Warlord is the flavor attached to it, not the mechanics.

What I don't like is the notion that a character is the "leader" by dint of having chosen a certain class. "Oh, that's just a word, you can re-fluff it however you want" proponents say. Except it's hard to believe they really think that, given how they describe the class:
- "Warlord" itself is aggrandizing beyond any other class name, and the alternatives offered, which nearly all suggest some kind of rank, are just as bad. If the Warlord is the "Officer" or "Captain" what does that make the Fighter? The Private? Yeah, I wanna play the low guy on the totem pole...
- The "officer" term in particular is often used as the real life archetype for the class. Q.E.F.D. (Logically, the problem I have with that concept is that adventuring parties are not military units.)
- When debating the warlord, and in particular the "realism" of martial healing (note: I have no opposition to martial healing itself) many, many posters use the example of the officer yelling at the raw recruit and getting him back in the battle. Again...yeah, great: I really want to play the guy who needs your character yelling at me to make me fight. Not.
- In general, the fluff of Warlord abilities gets described as telling the other characters what to do. "Order retreat", "Give command", "Bolster confidence", etc.
- When debating fictional/historical examples: the proponents cite all the coolest heroes as examples of warlords, which by process of elimination leaves only the sidekicks as other classes. Odysseus? Warlord. Aragron? Warlord. Lancelot? Warlord. Hannibal Smith? Warlord. (Not that they're right, but the fact that proponents think those characters represent the Warlord shows what they are thinking.)

I have to be honest, despite proponents' repeated claims that they just want more tactical play, it's hard not to suspect that what they really want is to just roleplay the Boss.

My only somewhat tongue-in-cheek response has been to suggest the "Caddy" class. Which, if all they want is the tactical options, and think that fluff really doesn't matter, should be fine for the Warlord fans.

Caddy Abilities:
"May I suggest the seven iron, sir?" You give another player a helpful suggestion, which gives them Advantage on their next Attack.
"Mind the sand bar" You point something out to an ally, giving them Advantage on Perception rolls for 1 round.
"Gin & tonic?" Restore 1d8 HP to an ally.
Etc.

Except, strangely, no Warlord fans have ever gotten excited about this idea.

So, my vote is No.

 

[mellored]

The elephant in the room, however, is that the devs have given us what they deem to be a viable, workable 5e warlord. They've said as much. I know you recall because we've had this very same debate before over on the WotC forums.

Yes...

A fighter with commander's strike, inspiring leader, healer, and shield master does in many ways represent a warlord.

But it's still missing some aspects. It's unsatisfactory, like the beastmaster.

Could they add another feat or two with things to enhance "tactical" play? Sure. Like you Help suggestion, etc.

Glad we found at least some common ground.

But a class? Not necessary.

No class is needed. All of them can be turned into feats.

Barbarian? Why not a simply have a rage and unarmored defense as a feat? Take that and Tough and durable.
Rogue? Why not cunning action and sneak attack as feat? Take that and the Skill feat.
Monk? Why not ki and stunning strike as a feat? Take that and the Mobility feat.
Fighter? Why not a multi-attack feat? Take that and the Armor / weapon feat.
Wizard? Why not just let you take magical imitate multiple times for increasing spell levels?

Then you only need 1 class that get 1 a feat every level....


I agree it would be a bit more difficult to change course at this point. At that maybe the best to be hoped for is a fighter sub-class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

P.S. What I might be ok with is a series of Feats...yes several of them...each of which grants the sort of ability the Warlord fans want. People keep saying that the Warlord is not the "best" at fighting because he's good at tactics. So that works just fine: sacrifice your ABI's, from any class, to create a Warlord. It would still annoy me that one player thinks his/her character is "giving orders", but at least it could be any class...including mine...and you would only turn into an "officer" after many levels, as opposed to being Destined for Leadership at Level 1.